draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08.txt   rfc8219.txt 
Benchmarking Working Group M. Georgescu
Internet Draft L. Pislaru
Intended status: Informational RCS&RDS
Expires: December 2017 G. Lencse
Szechenyi Istvan University
June 12, 2017
Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Georgescu
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08.txt Request for Comments: 8219 L. Pislaru
Category: Informational RCS&RDS
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Lencse
Szechenyi Istvan University
August 2017
Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies
Abstract Abstract
There are benchmarking methodologies addressing the performance of Benchmarking methodologies that address the performance of network
network interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable, but the interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable exist, but the
IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This
document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the
performance of IPv6 transition technologies. More specifically, performance of IPv6 transition technologies. More specifically, this
this document targets IPv6 transition technologies that employ document targets IPv6 transition technologies that employ
encapsulation or translation mechanisms, as dual-stack nodes can be encapsulation or translation mechanisms, as dual-stack nodes can be
very well tested using the recommendations of RFC2544 and RFC5180. tested using the recommendations of RFCs 2544 and 5180. The
The methodology also includes a metric for benchmarking load methodology also includes a metric for benchmarking load scalability.
scalability.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Status of This Memo
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt published for informational purposes.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 12, 2016. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8219.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction ....................................................4
1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies..............................4 1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies ...............................4
2. Conventions used in this document..............................6 2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................6
3. Terminology....................................................6 3. Terminology .....................................................7
4. Test Setup.....................................................6 4. Test Setup ......................................................7
4.1. Single translation Transition Technologies................7 4.1. Single-Translation Transition Technologies .................8
4.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies..7 4.2. Encapsulation and Double-Translation Transition
5. Test Traffic...................................................8 Technologies ...............................................8
5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes...................................8 5. Test Traffic ....................................................9
5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet.................9 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes ....................................9
5.2. Protocol Addresses........................................9 5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet ...............10
5.3. Traffic Setup.............................................9 5.2. Protocol Addresses ........................................10
6. Modifiers.....................................................10 5.3. Traffic Setup .............................................10
7. Benchmarking Tests............................................10 6. Modifiers ......................................................11
7.1. Throughput...............................................11 7. Benchmarking Tests .............................................11
Use Section 26.1 of RFC2544 unmodified........................11 7.1. Throughput ................................................11
7.2. Latency..................................................11 7.2. Latency ...................................................11
7.3. Packet Delay Variation...................................12 7.3. Packet Delay Variation ....................................13
7.3.1. PDV.................................................12 7.3.1. PDV ................................................13
7.3.2. IPDV................................................13 7.3.2. IPDV ...............................................14
7.4. Frame Loss Rate..........................................14 7.4. Frame Loss Rate ...........................................15
7.5. Back-to-back Frames......................................14 7.5. Back-to-Back Frames .......................................15
7.6. System Recovery..........................................14 7.6. System Recovery ...........................................15
7.7. Reset....................................................14 7.7. Reset .....................................................15
8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition 8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
Technologies.....................................................14 Technologies ...................................................15
8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity.......................14 8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity ........................15
8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate................14 8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate .................15
9. DNS Resolution Performance....................................14 9. DNS Resolution Performance .....................................15
9.1. Test and Traffic Setup...................................14 9.1. Test and Traffic Setup ....................................16
9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance..................16 9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance ...................17
9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester.........................17 9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester ........................18
10. Overload Scalability.........................................18 10. Overload Scalability ..........................................19
10.1. Test Setup..............................................18 10.1. Test Setup ...............................................19
10.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies.........18 10.1.1. Single-Translation Transition Technologies ........19
10.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition 10.1.2. Encapsulation and Double-Translation
Technologies...............................................19 Transition Technologies ...........................20
10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation....................19 10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation .....................21
10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load 10.2.1. Network Performance Degradation with
...........................................................19 Simultaneous Load .................................21
10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load 10.2.2. Network Performance Degradation with
...........................................................20 Incremental Load ..................................22
11. NAT44 and NAT66..............................................21 11. NAT44 and NAT66 ...............................................22
12. Summarizing function and variation...........................21 12. Summarizing Function and Variation ............................23
13. Security Considerations......................................22 13. Security Considerations .......................................23
14. IANA Considerations..........................................22 14. IANA Considerations ...........................................24
15. References...................................................22 15. References ....................................................24
15.1. Normative References....................................22 15.1. Normative References .....................................24
15.2. Informative References..................................23 15.2. Informative References ...................................25
16. Acknowledgements.............................................26 Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates........................29
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates......................27 Acknowledgements...................................................30
Authors' Addresses ................................................30
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] help vendors The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] help vendors
and network operators alike analyze the performance of IPv4 and and network operators alike analyze the performance of IPv4 and
IPv6-capable network devices. The methodology presented in [RFC2544] IPv6-capable network devices. The methodology presented in [RFC2544]
is mostly IP version independent, while [RFC5180] contains is mostly IP version independent, while [RFC5180] contains
complementary recommendations, which are specific to the latest IP complementary recommendations that are specific to the latest IP
version, IPv6. However, [RFC5180] does not cover IPv6 transition version, IPv6. However, [RFC5180] does not cover IPv6 transition
technologies. technologies.
IPv6 is not backwards compatible, which means that IPv4-only nodes IPv6 is not backwards compatible, which means that IPv4-only nodes
cannot directly communicate with IPv6-only nodes. To solve this cannot directly communicate with IPv6-only nodes. To solve this
issue, IPv6 transition technologies have been proposed and issue, IPv6 transition technologies have been proposed and
implemented. implemented.
This document presents benchmarking guidelines dedicated to IPv6 This document presents benchmarking guidelines dedicated to IPv6
transition technologies. The benchmarking tests can provide insights transition technologies. The benchmarking tests can provide insights
about the performance of these technologies, which can act as useful about the performance of these technologies, which can act as useful
feedback for developers, as well as for network operators going feedback for developers and network operators going through the IPv6
through the IPv6 transition process. transition process.
The document also includes an approach to quantify performance when The document also includes an approach to quantify performance when
operating in overload. Overload scalability can be defined as a operating in overload. Overload scalability can be defined as a
system's ability to gracefully accommodate greater numbers of flows system's ability to gracefully accommodate a greater number of flows
than the maximum number of flows which the Device under test (DUT) than the maximum number of flows that the Device Under Test (DUT) can
can operate normally. The approach taken here is to quantify the operate normally. The approach taken here is to quantify the
overload scalability by measuring the performance created by an overload scalability by measuring the performance created by an
excessive number of network flows, and comparing performance to the excessive number of network flows and comparing performance to the
non-overloaded case. non-overloaded case.
1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies 1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies
Two of the basic transition technologies, dual IP layer (also known Two of the basic transition technologies, dual IP layer (also known
as dual stack) and encapsulation are presented in [RFC4213]. as dual stack) and encapsulation, are presented in [RFC4213].
IPv4/IPv6 Translation is presented in [RFC6144]. Most of the IPv4/IPv6 translation is presented in [RFC6144]. Most of the
transition technologies employ at least one variation of these transition technologies employ at least one variation of these
mechanisms. In this context, a generic classification of the mechanisms. In this context, a generic classification of the
transition technologies can prove useful. transition technologies can prove useful.
We can consider a production network transitioning to IPv6 as being We can consider a production network transitioning to IPv6 as being
constructed using the following IP domains: constructed using the following IP domains:
o Domain A: IPvX specific domain o Domain A: IPvX-specific domain
o Core domain: which may be IPvY specific or dual-stack(IPvX and o Core domain: IPvY-specific or dual-stack (IPvX and IPvY) domain
IPvY)
o Domain B: IPvX specific domain o Domain B: IPvX-specific domain
Note: X,Y are part of the set {4,6}, and X NOT.EQUAL Y. Note: X,Y are part of the set {4,6}, and X is NOT EQUAL to Y.
According to the technology used for the core domain traversal the The transition technologies can be categorized according to the
transition technologies can be categorized as follows: technology used for traversal of the core domain:
1. Dual-stack: the core domain devices implement both IP protocols. 1. Dual stack: Devices in the core domain implement both IP
protocols.
2. Single Translation: In this case, the production network is 2. Single translation: In this case, the production network is
assumed to have only two domains, Domain A and the Core domain. assumed to have only two domains: Domain A and the core domain.
The core domain is assumed to be IPvY specific. IPvX packets are The core domain is assumed to be IPvY specific. IPvX packets are
translated to IPvY at the edge between Domain A and the Core translated to IPvY at the edge between Domain A and the core
domain. domain.
3. Double translation: The production network is assumed to have all 3. Double translation: The production network is assumed to have all
three domains; Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core three domains; Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core
domain is IPvY specific. A translation mechanism is employed for domain is IPvY specific. A translation mechanism is employed for
the traversal of the core network. The IPvX packets are the traversal of the core network. The IPvX packets are
translated to IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the translated to IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the
Core domain. Subsequently, the IPvY packets are translated back core domain. Subsequently, the IPvY packets are translated back
to IPvX at the edge between the Core domain and Domain B. to IPvX at the edge between the core domain and Domain B.
4. Encapsulation: The production network is assumed to have all 4. Encapsulation: The production network is assumed to have all
three domains; Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core three domains; Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core
domain is IPvY specific. An encapsulation mechanism is used to domain is IPvY specific. An encapsulation mechanism is used to
traverse the core domain. The IPvX packets are encapsulated to traverse the core domain. The IPvX packets are encapsulated to
IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the Core domain. IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the core domain.
Subsequently, the IPvY packets are de-encapsulated at the edge Subsequently, the IPvY packets are de-encapsulated at the edge
between the Core domain and Domain B. between the core domain and Domain B.
The performance of Dual-stack transition technologies can be fully The performance of dual-stack transition technologies can be fully
evaluated using the benchmarking methodologies presented by evaluated using the benchmarking methodologies presented by [RFC2544]
[RFC2544] and [RFC5180]. Consequently, this document focuses on the and [RFC5180]. Consequently, this document focuses on the other
other 3 categories: Single translation, Encapsulation and Double three categories: single-translation, double-translation, and
translation transition technologies. encapsulation transition technologies.
Another important aspect by which the IPv6 transition technologies Another important aspect by which IPv6 transition technologies can be
can be categorized is their use of stateful or stateless mapping categorized is their use of stateful or stateless mapping algorithms.
algorithms. The technologies that use stateful mapping algorithms The technologies that use stateful mapping algorithms (e.g., Stateful
(e.g. Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]) create dynamic correlations between NAT64 [RFC6146]) create dynamic correlations between IP addresses or
IP addresses or {IP address, transport protocol, transport port {IP address, transport protocol, transport port number} tuples, which
number} tuples, which are stored in a state table. For ease of are stored in a state table. For ease of reference, IPv6 transition
reference, the IPv6 transition technologies which employ stateful technologies that employ stateful mapping algorithms will be called
mapping algorithms will be called stateful IPv6 transition "stateful IPv6 transition technologies". The efficiency with which
technologies. The efficiency with which the state table is managed the state table is managed can be an important performance indicator
can be an important performance indicator for these technologies. for these technologies. Hence, additional benchmarking tests are
Hence, for the stateful IPv6 transition technologies additional RECOMMENDED for stateful IPv6 transition technologies.
benchmarking tests are RECOMMENDED.
Table 1 contains the generic categories as well as associations with Table 1 contains the generic categories and associations with some of
some of the IPv6 transition technologies proposed in the IETF. the IPv6 transition technologies proposed in the IETF. Please note
Please note that the list is not exhaustive. that the list is not exhaustive.
Table 1. IPv6 Transition Technologies Categories
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| | Generic category | IPv6 Transition Technology | | | Generic category | IPv6 Transition Technology |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Dual-stack | Dual IP Layer Operations [RFC4213] | | 1 | Dual stack | Dual IP Layer Operations [RFC4213] |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Single translation | NAT64 [RFC6146], IVI [RFC6219] | | 2 | Single translation | NAT64 [RFC6146], IVI [RFC6219] |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Double translation | 464XLAT [RFC6877], MAP-T [RFC7599] | | 3 | Double translation | 464XLAT [RFC6877], MAP-T [RFC7599] |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 4 | Encapsulation | DSLite[RFC6333], MAP-E [RFC7597] | | 4 | Encapsulation | DS-Lite [RFC6333], MAP-E [RFC7597],|
| | | Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596] | | | | Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596], |
| | | 6RD [RFC5569], 6PE [RFC4798], 6VPE | | | | 6rd [RFC5569], 6PE [RFC4798], |
| | | 6VPE [RFC4659] | | | | 6VPE [RFC4659] |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
2. Conventions used in this document Table 1: IPv6 Transition Technologies Categories
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 2. Conventions Used in This Document
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Although these terms are usually associated with protocol Although these terms are usually associated with protocol
requirements, in this document the terms are requirements for users requirements, in this document, the terms are requirements for users
and systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim and systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim
conformance with this specification. conformance with this specification.
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
A number of terms used in this memo have been defined in other RFCs. A number of terms used in this memo have been defined in other RFCs.
Please refer to those RFCs for definitions, testing procedures and Please refer to the RFCs below for definitions, testing procedures,
reporting formats. and reporting formats.
Throughput (Benchmark) - [RFC2544] o Throughput (Benchmark) [RFC2544]
Frame Loss Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC2544] o Frame Loss Rate (Benchmark) [RFC2544]
Back-to-back Frames (Benchmark) - [RFC2544] o Back-to-Back Frames (Benchmark) [RFC2544]
System Recovery (Benchmark) - [RFC2544] o System Recovery (Benchmark) [RFC2544]
Reset (Benchmark) - [RFC6201] o Reset (Benchmark) [RFC6201]
Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity (Benchmark) - [RFC3511] o Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity (Benchmark) [RFC3511]
Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC3511] o Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate (Benchmark) [RFC3511]
4. Test Setup 4. Test Setup
The test environment setup options recommended for IPv6 transition The test environment setup options recommended for benchmarking IPv6
technologies benchmarking are very similar to the ones presented in transition technologies are very similar to the ones presented in
Section 6 of [RFC2544]. In the case of the tester setup, the options Section 6 of [RFC2544]. In the case of the Tester setup, the options
presented in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be applied here as well. presented in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be applied here as well.
However, the Device under test (DUT) setup options should be However, the DUT setup options should be explained in the context of
explained in the context of the targeted categories of IPv6 the targeted categories of IPv6 transition technologies: single
transition technologies: Single translation, Double translation and translation, double translation, and encapsulation.
Encapsulation transition technologies.
Although both single tester and sender/receiver setups are Although both single Tester and sender/receiver setups are applicable
applicable to this methodology, the single tester setup will be used to this methodology, the single Tester setup will be used to describe
to describe the DUT setup options. the DUT setup options.
For the test setups presented in this memo, dynamic routing SHOULD For the test setups presented in this memo, dynamic routing SHOULD be
be employed. However, the presence of routing and management frames employed. However, the presence of routing and management frames can
can represent unwanted background data that can affect the represent unwanted background data that can affect the benchmarking
benchmarking result. To that end, the procedures defined in result. To that end, the procedures defined in Sections 11.2 and
[RFC2544] (Sections 11.2 and 11.3) related to routing and management 11.3 of [RFC2544] related to routing and management frames SHOULD be
frames SHOULD be used here. Moreover, the "Trial description" used here. Moreover, the "trial description" recommendations
recommendations presented in [RFC2544] (Section 23) are also valid presented in Section 23 of [RFC2544] are also valid for this memo.
for this memo.
In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13 In terms of route setup, the recommendations of Section 13 of
are valid for this document assuming that IPv6 capable routing [RFC2544] are valid for this document, assuming that IPv6-capable
protocols are used.. routing protocols are used.
4.1. Single translation Transition Technologies 4.1. Single-Translation Transition Technologies
For the evaluation of Single translation transition technologies, a For the evaluation of single-translation transition technologies, a
single DUT setup (see Figure 1) SHOULD be used. The DUT is single DUT setup (see Figure 1) SHOULD be used. The DUT is
responsible for translating the IPvX packets into IPvY packets. In responsible for translating the IPvX packets into IPvY packets. In
this context, the tester device SHOULD be configured to support both this context, the Tester device SHOULD be configured to support both
IPvX and IPvY. IPvX and IPvY.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
| | | |
+------------|IPvX tester IPvY|<-------------+ +------------|IPvX Tester IPvY|<-------------+
| | | | | | | |
| +--------------------+ | | +--------------------+ |
| | | |
| +--------------------+ | | +--------------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
+----------->|IPvX DUT IPvY|--------------+ +----------->|IPvX DUT IPvY|--------------+
| | | |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
Figure 1. Test setup 1
4.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies Figure 1: Test Setup 1 (Single DUT)
For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation and Double 4.2. Encapsulation and Double-Translation Transition Technologies
For evaluating the performance of encapsulation and double-
translation transition technologies, a dual DUT setup (see Figure 2) translation transition technologies, a dual DUT setup (see Figure 2)
SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of IPvX SHOULD be employed. The Tester creates a network flow of IPvX
packets. The first DUT is responsible for the encapsulation or packets. The first DUT is responsible for the encapsulation or
translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are
de-encapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT de-encapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT and
and forwarded to the tester. forwarded to the Tester.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
| | | |
+---------------------|IPvX tester IPvX|<------------------+ +---------------------|IPvX Tester IPvX|<------------------+
| | | | | | | |
| +--------------------+ | | +--------------------+ |
| | | |
| +--------------------+ +--------------------+ | | +--------------------+ +--------------------+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+----->|IPvX DUT 1 IPvY |----->|IPvY DUT 2 IPvX |------+ +----->|IPvX DUT 1 IPvY |----->|IPvY DUT 2 IPvX |------+
| | | | | | | |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
Figure 2. Test setup 2
Figure 2: Test Setup 2 (Dual DUT)
One of the limitations of the dual DUT setup is the inability to One of the limitations of the dual DUT setup is the inability to
reflect asymmetries in behavior between the DUTs. Considering this, reflect asymmetries in behavior between the DUTs. Considering this,
additional performance tests SHOULD be performed using the single additional performance tests SHOULD be performed using the single DUT
DUT setup. setup.
Note: For encapsulation IPv6 transition technologies, in the single Note: For encapsulation IPv6 transition technologies in the single
DUT setup, in order to test the de-encapsulation efficiency, the DUT setup, the Tester SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets
tester SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets encasulated as IPvY. encapsulated as IPvY in order to test the de-encapsulation
efficiency.
5. Test Traffic 5. Test Traffic
The test traffic represents the experimental workload and SHOULD The test traffic represents the experimental workload and SHOULD meet
meet the requirements specified in this section. The requirements the requirements specified in this section. The requirements are
are dedicated to unicast IP traffic. Multicast IP traffic is outside dedicated to unicast IP traffic. Multicast IP traffic is outside of
of the scope of this document. the scope of this document.
5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes
[RFC5180] describes the frame size requirements for two commonly [RFC5180] describes the frame size requirements for two commonly used
used media types: Ethernet and SONET (Synchronous Optical Network). media types: Ethernet and SONET (Synchronous Optical Network).
[RFC2544] covers also other media types, such as token ring and [RFC2544] also covers other media types, such as token ring and Fiber
FDDI. The recommendations of the two documents can be used for the Distributed Data Interface (FDDI). The recommendations of those two
dual-stack transition technologies. For the rest of the transition documents can be used for the dual-stack transition technologies.
technologies, the frame overhead introduced by translation or For the rest of the transition technologies, the frame overhead
encapsulation MUST be considered. introduced by translation or encapsulation MUST be considered.
The encapsulation/translation process generates different size The encapsulation/translation process generates different size frames
frames on different segments of the test setup. For instance, the on different segments of the test setup. For instance, the single-
single translation transition technologies will create different translation transition technologies will create different frame sizes
frame sizes on the receiving segment of the test setup, as IPvX on the receiving segment of the test setup, as IPvX packets are
packets are translated to IPvY. This is not a problem if the translated to IPvY. This is not a problem if the bandwidth of the
bandwidth of the employed media is not exceeded. To prevent employed media is not exceeded. To prevent exceeding the limitations
exceeding the limitations imposed by the media, the frame size imposed by the media, the frame size overhead needs to be taken into
overhead needs to be taken into account when calculating the maximum account when calculating the maximum theoretical frame rates. The
theoretical frame rates. The calculation method for the Ethernet, as calculation method for the Ethernet, as well as a calculation
well as a calculation example, are detailed in Appendix A. The example, are detailed in Appendix A. The details of the media
details of the media employed for the benchmarking tests MUST be employed for the benchmarking tests MUST be noted in all test
noted in all test reports. reports.
In the context of frame size overhead, MTU recommendations are In the context of frame size overhead, MTU recommendations are needed
needed in order to avoid frame loss due to MTU mismatch between the in order to avoid frame loss due to MTU mismatch between the virtual
virtual encapsulation/translation interfaces and the physical encapsulation/translation interfaces and the physical network
network interface controllers (NICs). To avoid this situation, the interface controllers (NICs). To avoid this situation, the larger
larger MTU between the physical NICs and virtual MTU between the physical NICs and virtual encapsulation/translation
encapsulation/translation interfaces SHOULD be set for all interfaces SHOULD be set for all interfaces of the DUT and Tester.
interfaces of the DUT and tester. To be more specific, the minimum
IPv6 MTU size (1280 bytes) plus the encapsulation/translation
overhead is the RECOMMENDED value for the physical interfaces as
well as virtual ones.
5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet To be more specific, the minimum IPv6 MTU size (1280 bytes) plus the
encapsulation/translation overhead is the RECOMMENDED value for the
physical interfaces as well as virtual ones.
5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet
Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the following frame sizes Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the following frame sizes
SHOULD be used for benchmarking IPvX/IPvY traffic on Ethernet links: SHOULD be used for benchmarking IPvX/IPvY traffic on Ethernet links:
64, 128, 256, 512, 768, 1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192 and 64, 128, 256, 512, 768, 1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192, and
9216. 9216.
For Ethernet frames exceeding 1500 bytes in size, the [IEEE802.1AC] For Ethernet frames exceeding 1500 bytes in size, the [IEEE802.1AC]
standard can be consulted. standard can be consulted.
Note: for single translation transition technologies (e.g. NAT64) in Note: For single-translation transition technologies (e.g., NAT64) in
the IPv6 -> IPv4 translation direction, 64 byte frames SHOULD be the IPv6 -> IPv4 translation direction, 64-byte frames SHOULD be
replaced by 84 byte frames. This would allow the frames to be replaced by 84-byte frames. This would allow the frames to be
transported over media such as the ones described by the IEEE 802.1Q transported over media such as the ones described by the [IEEE802.1Q]
standard. Moreover, this would also allow the implementation of a standard. Moreover, this would also allow the implementation of a
frame identifier in the UDP data. frame identifier in the UDP data.
The theoretical maximum frame rates considering an example of frame The theoretical maximum frame rates considering an example of frame
overhead are presented in Appendix A. overhead are presented in Appendix A.
5.2. Protocol Addresses 5.2. Protocol Addresses
The selected protocol addresses should follow the recommendations of The selected protocol addresses should follow the recommendations of
[RFC5180](Section 5) for IPv6 and [RFC2544](Section 12) for IPv4. Section 5 of [RFC5180] for IPv6 and Section 12 of [RFC2544] for IPv4.
Note: testing traffic with extension headers might not be possible Note: Testing traffic with extension headers might not be possible
for the transition technologies, which employ translation. Proposed for the transition technologies that employ translation. Proposed
IPvX/IPvY translation algorithms such as IP/ICMP translation IPvX/IPvY translation algorithms such as IP/ICMP translation
[RFC7915] do not support the use of extension headers. [RFC7915] do not support the use of extension headers.
5.3. Traffic Setup 5.3. Traffic Setup
Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described
SHOULD be performed with bi-directional traffic. Uni-directional SHOULD be performed with bidirectional traffic. Unidirectional
traffic tests MAY also be performed for a fine grained performance traffic tests MAY also be performed for a fine-grained performance
assessment. assessment.
Because of the simplicity of UDP, UDP measurements offer a more Because of the simplicity of UDP, UDP measurements offer a more
reliable basis for comparison than other transport layer protocols. reliable basis for comparison than other transport-layer protocols.
Consequently, for the benchmarking tests described in Section 7 of Consequently, for the benchmarking tests described in Section 7 of
this document UDP traffic SHOULD be employed. this document, UDP traffic SHOULD be employed.
Considering that a transition technology could process both native Considering that a transition technology could process both native
IPv6 traffic and translated/encapsulated traffic, the following IPv6 traffic and translated/encapsulated traffic, the following
traffic setups are recommended: traffic setups are recommended:
i) IPvX only traffic (where the IPvX traffic is to be i) IPvX only traffic (where the IPvX traffic is to be
translated/encapsulated by the DUT) translated/encapsulated by the DUT)
ii) 90% IPvX traffic and 10% IPvY native traffic ii) 90% IPvX traffic and 10% IPvY native traffic
iii) 50% IPvX traffic and 50% IPvY native traffic iii) 50% IPvX traffic and 50% IPvY native traffic
iv) 10% IPvX traffic and 90% IPvY native traffic iv) 10% IPvX traffic and 90% IPvY native traffic
For the benchmarks dedicated to stateful IPv6 transition For the benchmarks dedicated to stateful IPv6 transition
technologies, included in Section 8 of this memo (Concurrent TCP technologies, included in Section 8 of this memo (Concurrent TCP
Connection Capacity and Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate), Connection Capacity and Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate),
the traffic SHOULD follow the recommendations of [RFC3511], Sections the traffic SHOULD follow the recommendations of Sections 5.2.2.2 and
5.2.2.2 and 5.3.2.2. 5.3.2.2 of [RFC3511].
6. Modifiers 6. Modifiers
The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first
introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important introduced in Section 11 of [RFC2544] and represents an important
aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates, to some aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates, to some
extent, the conditions of a production environment. Section 6 of extent, the conditions of a production environment. Section 6 of
[RFC5180] describes complementary testing conditions specific to [RFC5180] describes complementary test conditions specific to IPv6.
IPv6. Their recommendations can also be followed for IPv6 transition The recommendations in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can also be followed
technologies testing. for testing of IPv6 transition technologies.
7. Benchmarking Tests 7. Benchmarking Tests
The following sub-sections contain the list of all recommended The following sub-sections describe all recommended benchmarking
benchmarking tests. tests.
7.1. Throughput 7.1. Throughput
Use Section 26.1 of RFC2544 unmodified. Use Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] unmodified.
7.2. Latency 7.2. Latency
Objective: To determine the latency. Typical latency is based on the Objective: To determine the latency. Typical latency is based on the
definitions of latency from [RFC1242]. However, this memo provides a definitions of latency from [RFC1242]. However, this memo provides a
new measurement procedure. new measurement procedure.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC2544], the throughput for DUT at each of Procedure: Similar to [RFC2544], the throughput for DUT at each of
the listed frame sizes SHOULD be determined. Send a stream of frames the listed frame sizes SHOULD be determined. Send a stream of frames
at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
least 120 seconds in duration. least 120 seconds in duration.
Identifying tags SHOULD be included in at least 500 frames after 60 Identifying tags SHOULD be included in at least 500 frames after 60
seconds. For each tagged frame, the time at which the frame was seconds. For each tagged frame, the time at which the frame was
fully transmitted (timestamp A) and the time at which the frame was fully transmitted (timestamp A) and the time at which the frame was
received (timestamp B) MUST be recorded. The latency is timestamp B received (timestamp B) MUST be recorded. The latency is timestamp B
minus timestamp A as per the relevant definition from RFC 1242, minus timestamp A as per the relevant definition from RFC 1242,
namely latency as defined for store and forward devices or latency namely, latency as defined for store and forward devices or latency
as defined for bit forwarding devices. as defined for bit forwarding devices.
We recommend to encode the identifying tag in the payload of the We recommend encoding the identifying tag in the payload of the
frame. To be more exact, the identifier SHOULD be inserted after the frame. To be more exact, the identifier SHOULD be inserted after the
UDP header. UDP header.
From the resulted (at least 500) latencies, 2 quantities SHOULD be From the resulted (at least 500) latencies, two quantities SHOULD be
calculated. One is the typical latency, which SHOULD be calculated calculated. One is the typical latency, which SHOULD be calculated
with the following formula: with the following formula:
TL=Median(Li) TL = Median(Li)
Where: TL - the reported typical latency of the stream Where:
Li -the latency for tagged frame i o TL = the reported typical latency of the stream
The other measure is the worst case latency, which SHOULD be o Li = the latency for tagged frame i
The other measure is the worst-case latency, which SHOULD be
calculated with the following formula: calculated with the following formula:
WCL=L99.9thPercentile WCL = L99.9thPercentile
Where: WCL - The reported worst case latency Where:
L99.9thPercentile - The 99.9th Percentile of the stream measured o WCL = the reported worst-case latency
latencies
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported o L99.9thPercentile = the 99.9th percentile of the stream-measured
value being the median of the recorded values for TL and WCL. latencies
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported value
being the median of the recorded values for TL and WCL.
Reporting Format: The report MUST state which definition of latency Reporting Format: The report MUST state which definition of latency
(from RFC 1242) was used for this test. The summarized latency (from RFC 1242) was used for this test. The summarized latency
results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row for results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row for
each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the
frame size, the rate at which the latency test was run for that frame size, the rate at which the latency test was run for that frame
frame size, for the media types tested, and for the resultant size, the media types tested, and the resultant typical latency, and
typical latency and worst case latency values for each type of data the worst-case latency values for each type of data stream tested.
stream tested. To account for the variation, the 1st and 99th To account for the variation, the 1st and 99th percentiles of the 20
percentiles of the 20 iterations MAY be reported in two separated iterations MAY be reported in two separated columns. For a fine-
columns. For a fine grained analysis, the histogram (as exemplified grained analysis, the histogram (as exemplified in Section 4.4 of
in [RFC5481] Section 4.4) of one of the iterations MAY be [RFC5481]) of one of the iterations MAY be displayed.
displayed .
7.3. Packet Delay Variation 7.3. Packet Delay Variation
Considering two of the metrics presented in [RFC5481], Packet Delay [RFC5481] presents two metrics: Packet Delay Variation (PDV) and
Variation (PDV) and Inter Packet Delay Variation (IPDV), it is Inter Packet Delay Variation (IPDV). Measuring PDV is RECOMMENDED;
RECOMMENDED to measure PDV. For a fine grained analysis of delay for a fine-grained analysis of delay variation, IPDV measurements MAY
variation, IPDV measurements MAY be performed. be performed.
7.3.1. PDV 7.3.1. PDV
Objective: To determine the Packet Delay Variation as defined in Objective: To determine the Packet Delay Variation as defined in
[RFC5481]. [RFC5481].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput
for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of
frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the one-way delay as described
by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the
stream using the formula: stream using the formula:
PDV=D99.9thPercentile - Dmin PDV = D99.9thPercentile - Dmin
Where: D99.9thPercentile - the 99.9th Percentile (as it was Where:
described in [RFC5481]) of the One-way delay for the stream
Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream o D99.9thPercentile = the 99.9th percentile (as described in
[RFC5481]) of the one-way delay for the stream
o Dmin = the minimum one-way delay in the stream
As recommended in [RFC2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20 As recommended in [RFC2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20
times with the reported value being the median of the recorded times with the reported value being the median of the recorded
values. Moreover, the 1st and 99th percentiles SHOULD be calculated values. Moreover, the 1st and 99th percentiles SHOULD be calculated
to account for the variation of the dataset. to account for the variation of the dataset.
Reporting Format: The PDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with Reporting Format: The PDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with
a row for each of the tested frame sizes and columns for the frame a row for each of the tested frame sizes and columns for the frame
size and the applied frame rate for the tested media types. Two size and the applied frame rate for the tested media types. Two
columns for the 1st and 99th percentile values MAY be displayed. columns for the 1st and 99th percentile values MAY be displayed.
Following the recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of Following the recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of
measurement are milliseconds. measurement are milliseconds.
7.3.2. IPDV 7.3.2. IPDV
Objective: To determine the Inter Packet Delay Variation as defined Objective: To determine the Inter Packet Delay Variation as defined
in [RFC5481]. in [RFC5481].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput
for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of
frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the one-way delay as described
by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the IPDV for by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the IPDV for
each of the frames using the formula: each of the frames using the formula:
IPDV(i)=D(i) - D(i-1) IPDV(i) = D(i) - D(i-1)
Where: D(i) - the One-way delay of the i th frame in the stream Where:
D(i-1) - the One-way delay of i-1 th frame in the stream o D(i) = the one-way delay of the i-th frame in the stream
o D(i-1) = the one-way delay of (i-1)th frame in the stream
Given the nature of IPDV, reporting a single number might lead to Given the nature of IPDV, reporting a single number might lead to
over-summarization. In this context, the report for each measurement over-summarization. In this context, the report for each measurement
SHOULD include 3 values: Dmin, Dmed, and Dmax SHOULD include three values: Dmin, Dmed, and Dmax.
Where: Dmin - the minimum IPDV in the stream Where:
Dmed - the median IPDV of the stream o Dmin = the minimum IPDV in the stream
Dmax - the maximum IPDV in the stream o Dmed = the median IPDV of the stream
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times. To summarize the 20 o Dmax = the maximum IPDV in the stream
repetitions, for each of the 3 (Dmin, Dmed and Dmax) the median
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times. To summarize the 20
repetitions, for each of the three (Dmin, Dmed, and Dmax), the median
value SHOULD be reported. value SHOULD be reported.
Reporting format: The median for the 3 proposed values SHOULD be Reporting format: The median for the three proposed values SHOULD be
reported. The IPDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with a row reported. The IPDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes. The columns SHOULD include the for each of the tested frame sizes. The columns SHOULD include the
frame size and associated frame rate for the tested media types and frame size and associated frame rate for the tested media types and
sub-columns for the three proposed reported values. Following the sub-columns for the three proposed reported values. Following the
recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement
are milliseconds. are milliseconds.
7.4. Frame Loss Rate 7.4. Frame Loss Rate
Use Section 26.3 of [RFC2544] unmodified. Use Section 26.3 of [RFC2544] unmodified.
7.5. Back-to-back Frames 7.5. Back-to-Back Frames
Use Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] unmodified. Use Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] unmodified.
7.6. System Recovery 7.6. System Recovery
Use Section 26.5 of [RFC2544] unmodified. Use Section 26.5 of [RFC2544] unmodified.
7.7. Reset 7.7. Reset
Use Section 4 of [RFC6201] unmodified. Use Section 4 of [RFC6201] unmodified.
8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition 8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
Technologies Technologies
This section describes additional tests dedicated to the stateful This section describes additional tests dedicated to stateful IPv6
IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this transition technologies. For the tests described in this section,
section, the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test parameters
parameters recommendations presented in [RFC3511] (Sections 5.2 and recommendations presented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of [RFC3511].
5.3)
The following additional tests SHOULD be performed. The following additional tests SHOULD be performed.
8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity 8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity
Use Section 5.2 of [RFC3511] unmodified. Use Section 5.2 of [RFC3511] unmodified.
8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate 8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate
Use Section 5.3 of RFC3511 unmodified. Use Section 5.3 of [RFC3511] unmodified.
9. DNS Resolution Performance 9. DNS Resolution Performance
This section describes benchmarking tests dedicated to DNS64 (see This section describes benchmarking tests dedicated to DNS64 (see
[RFC6147]), used as DNS support for single translation technologies [RFC6147]), used as DNS support for single-translation technologies
such as NAT64. such as NAT64.
9.1. Test and Traffic Setup 9.1. Test and Traffic Setup
The test setup in Figure 3 follows the setup proposed for single The test setup in Figure 3 follows the setup proposed for single-
translation IPv6 transition technologies in Figure 1. translation IPv6 transition technologies in Figure 1.
1:AAAA query +--------------------+ 1:AAAA query +--------------------+
+------------| |<-------------+ +------------| |<-------------+
| |IPv6 Tester IPv4| | | |IPv6 Tester IPv4| |
| +-------->| |----------+ | | +-------->| |----------+ |
| | +--------------------+ 3:empty | | | | +--------------------+ 3:empty | |
| | 6:synt'd AAAA, | | | | 6:synt'd AAAA, | |
| | AAAA +--------------------+ 5:valid A| | | | AAAA +--------------------+ 5:valid A| |
| +---------| |<---------+ | | +---------| |<---------+ |
| |IPv6 DUT IPv4| | | |IPv6 DUT IPv4| |
+----------->| (DNS64) |--------------+ +----------->| (DNS64) |--------------+
+--------------------+ 2:AAAA query, 4:A query +--------------------+ 2:AAAA query, 4:A query
Figure 3. DNS64 test setup
The test traffic SHOULD follow the following steps. Figure 3: Test Setup 3 (DNS64)
1. Query for the AAAA record of a domain name (from client to DNS64 The test traffic SHOULD be composed of the following messages.
server)
2. Query for the AAAA record of the same domain name (from DNS64 1. Query for the AAAA record of a domain name (from client to DNS64
server to authoritative DNS server) server)
3. Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64 2. Query for the AAAA record of the same domain name (from DNS64
server) server to authoritative DNS server)
4. Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server 3. Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
to authoritative DNS server) server)
5. Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64 4. Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server
server) to authoritative DNS server)
6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client) 5. Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
server)
6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client)
The Tester plays the role of DNS client as well as authoritative DNS The Tester plays the role of DNS client as well as authoritative DNS
server. It MAY be realized as a single physical device, or server. It MAY be realized as a single physical device, or
alternatively, two physical devices MAY be used. alternatively, two physical devices MAY be used.
Please note that: Please note that:
- If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache o If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache hit,
hit, then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5 then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5 are
are omitted). omitted).
- If the domain name has an AAAA record, then it is returned in
step 3 by the authoritative DNS server; steps 4 and 5 are
omitted, and the DNS64 server does not synthesizes an AAAA
record, but returns the received AAAA record to the client.
- As for the IP version used between the tester and the DUT, IPv6 o If the domain name has a AAAA record, then it is returned in step
MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a 3 by the authoritative DNS server, steps 4 and 5 are omitted, and
DNS64 server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but the DNS64 server does not synthesize a AAAA record but returns the
either IPv4 or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and received AAAA record to the client.
the authoritative DNS server.
9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance o As for the IP version used between the Tester and the DUT, IPv6
MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a DNS64
server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but either IPv4
or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and the authoritative
DNS server.
9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance
Objective: To determine DNS64 performance by means of the maximum Objective: To determine DNS64 performance by means of the maximum
number of successfully processed DNS requests per second. number of successfully processed DNS requests per second.
Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate
to the DUT and then count the replies received in time (within a to the DUT, and then count the replies from the DUT that are received
predefined timeout period from the sending time of the corresponding in time (within a predefined timeout period from the sending time of
query, having the default value 1 second) and valid (contains an the corresponding query, having the default value 1 second) and that
AAAA record) from the DUT. If the count of sent queries is equal to are valid (contain a AAAA record). If the count of sent queries is
the count of received replies, the rate of the queries is raised and equal to the count of received replies, the rate of the queries is
the test is rerun. If fewer replies are received than queries were raised, and the test is rerun. If fewer replies are received than
sent, the rate of the queries is reduced and the test is rerun. The queries were sent, the rate of the queries is reduced, and the test
duration of each trial SHOULD be at least 60 seconds. This will is rerun. The duration of each trial SHOULD be at least 60 seconds.
reduce the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able to This will reduce the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able
exhibit higher performance by storing the requests and thus to exhibit higher performance by storing the requests and thus also
utilizing also the timeout time for answering them. For the same utilizing the timeout time for answering them. For the same reason,
reason, no higher timeout time than 1 second SHOULD be used. For no higher timeout time than 1 second SHOULD be used. For further
further considerations, see [Lencse1]. considerations, see [Lencse1].
The maximum number of processed DNS queries per second is the The maximum number of processed DNS queries per second is the fastest
fastest rate at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is rate at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is equal to
equal to the number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment. the number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment.
The test SHOULD be repeated at least 20 times and the median and 1st The test SHOULD be repeated at least 20 times, and the median and
/99th percentiles of the number of processed DNS queries per second 1st/99th percentiles of the number of processed DNS queries per
SHOULD be calculated. second SHOULD be calculated.
Details and parameters: Details and parameters:
1. Caching 1. Caching
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names (or
domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT is
exhausted). Then new tests MAY be executed with domain names, 20%,
40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of which are cached. We note that ensuring a
record being cached requires repeating it both "late enough" after
the first query to be already resolved and be present in the cache
and "early enough" to be still present in the cache.
2. Existence of AAAA record First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names which do not (or domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT
have an AAAA record and have exactly one A record. is exhausted). Then, new tests MAY be executed when domain names
are 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% cached. Ensuring that a record
is cached requires repeating a domain name both "late enough"
after the first query to be already resolved and be present in
the cache and "early enough" to be still present in the cache.
Then new tests MAY be executed with domain names, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% 2. Existence of a AAAA record
and 100% of which have an AAAA record.
Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal, thus all First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names that do not
their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with have a AAAA record and have exactly one A record. Then, new
0% cached domain names and with 0% existing AAAA record is REQUIRED tests MAY be executed when 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% of domain
and the other combinations are OPTIONAL. (When all the domain names names have a AAAA record.
Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal; thus, all
their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with
0% cached domain names and with 0% existing AAAA records is REQUIRED,
and the other combinations are OPTIONAL. (When all the domain names
are cached, then the results do not depend on what percentage of the are cached, then the results do not depend on what percentage of the
domain names have AAAA records, thus these combinations are not domain names have AAAA records; thus, these combinations are not
worth testing one by one.) worth testing one by one.)
Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64 test is the median Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64 test is the median
of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured with the of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured with the
above mentioned "0% + 0% combination". The median SHOULD be above mentioned "0% + 0% combination". The median SHOULD be
complemented with the 1st and 99th percentiles to show the stability complemented with the 1st and 99th percentiles to show the stability
of the result. If optional tests are done, the median and the 1st of the result. If optional tests are done, the median and the 1st
and 99th percentiles MAY be presented in a two dimensional table and 99th percentiles MAY be presented in a two-dimensional table
where the dimensions are the proportion of the repeated domain names where the dimensions are the proportion of the repeated domain names
and the proportion of the DNS names having AAAA records. The two and the proportion of the DNS names having AAAA records. The two
table headings SHOULD contain these percentage values. table headings SHOULD contain these percentage values.
Alternatively, the results MAY be presented as the corresponding two Alternatively, the results MAY be presented as a corresponding two-
dimensional graph, too. In this case the graph SHOULD show the dimensional graph. In this case, the graph SHOULD show the median
median values with the percentiles as error bars. From both the values with the percentiles as error bars. From both the table and
table and the graph, one dimensional excerpts MAY be made at any the graph, one-dimensional excerpts MAY be made at any given fixed-
given fixed percentage value of the other dimension. In this case, percentage value of the other dimension. In this case, the fixed
the fixed value MUST be given together with a one dimensional table value MUST be given together with a one-dimensional table or graph.
or graph.
9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester 9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester
Before a Tester can be used for testing a DUT at rate r queries per Before a Tester can be used for testing a DUT at rate r queries per
second with t seconds timeout, it MUST perform a self-test in order second with t seconds timeout, it MUST perform a self-test in order
to exclude the possibility that the poor performance of the Tester to exclude the possibility that the poor performance of the Tester
itself influences the results. For performing a self-test, the itself influences the results. To perform a self-test, the Tester is
tester is looped back (leaving out DUT) and its authoritative DNS looped back (leaving out DUT), and its authoritative DNS server
server subsystem is configured to be able to answer all the AAAA subsystem is configured to be able to answer all the AAAA record
record queries. For passing the self-test, the Tester SHOULD be able queries. To pass the self-test, the Tester SHOULD be able to answer
to answer AAAA record queries at 2*(r+delta) rate within 0.25*t AAAA record queries at rate of 2*(r+delta) within a 0.25*t timeout,
timeout, where the value of delta is at least 0.1. where the value of delta is at least 0.1.
Explanation: When performing DNS64 testing, each AAAA record query Explanation: When performing DNS64 testing, each AAAA record query
may result in at most two queries sent by the DUT, the first one of may result in at most two queries sent by the DUT: the first for a
them is for an AAAA record and the second one is for an A record AAAA record and the second for an A record (they are both sent when
(the are both sent when there is no cache hit and also no AAAA there is no cache hit and also no AAAA record exists). The
record exists). The parameters above guarantee that the parameters above guarantee that the authoritative DNS server
authoritative DNS server subsystem of the DUT is able to answer the subsystem of the DUT is able to answer the queries at the required
queries at the required frequency using up not more than the half of frequency using up not more than half of the timeout time.
the timeout time.
Remark: a sample open-source test program, dns64perf++, is available Note: A sample open-source test program, dns64perf++, is available
from [Dns64perf] and it is documented in [Lencse2]. It implements from [Dns64perf] and is documented in [Lencse2]. It implements only
only the client part of the Tester and it should be used together the client part of the Tester and should be used together with an
with an authoritative DNS server implementation, e.g. BIND, NSD or authoritative DNS server implementation, e.g., BIND, NSD, or YADIFA.
YADIFA. Its experimental extension for testing caching is available Its experimental extension for testing caching is available from
from [Lencse3] and it is documented in [Lencse4]. [Lencse3] and is documented in [Lencse4].
10. Overload Scalability 10. Overload Scalability
Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of
network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not
yet been proposed. In this context, we can define overload yet been proposed. In this context, we can define overload
scalability as the ability of each transition technology to scalability as the ability of each transition technology to
accommodate network growth. Poor scalability usually leads to poor accommodate network growth. Poor scalability usually leads to poor
performance. Considering this, overload scalability can be measured performance. Considering this, overload scalability can be measured
by quantifying the network performance degradation associated with by quantifying the network performance degradation associated with an
an increased number of network flows. increased number of network flows.
The following subsections describe how the test setups can be The following subsections describe how the test setups can be
modified to create network growth and how the associated performance modified to create network growth and how the associated performance
degradation can be quantified. degradation can be quantified.
10.1. Test Setup 10.1. Test Setup
The test setups defined in Section 3 have to be modified to create The test setups defined in Section 4 have to be modified to create
network growth. network growth.
10.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies 10.1.1. Single-Translation Transition Technologies
In the case of single translation transition technologies the In the case of single-translation transition technologies, the
network growth can be generated by increasing the number of network network growth can be generated by increasing the number of network
flows generated by the tester machine (see Figure 4). flows (NFs) generated by the Tester machine (see Figure 4).
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
+------------|NF1 NF1|<-------------+ +------------|NF1 NF1|<-------------+
| +---------|NF2 tester NF2|<----------+ | | +---------|NF2 Tester NF2|<----------+ |
| | ...| | | | | | ...| | | |
| | +-----|NFn NFn|<------+ | | | | +-----|NFn NFn|<------+ | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | | | | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | | | | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | +---->|NFn NFn|-------+ | | | | +---->|NFn NFn|-------+ | |
| | ...| DUT | | | | | ...| DUT | | |
| +-------->|NF2 (translator) NF2|-----------+ | | +-------->|NF2 (translator) NF2|-----------+ |
+----------->|NF1 NF1|--------------+ +----------->|NF1 NF1|--------------+
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
Figure 4. Test setup 3
10.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition Technologies Figure 4: Test Setup 4 (Single DUT with Increased
Network Flows)
Similarly, for the encapsulation/double translation technologies a 10.1.2. Encapsulation and Double-Translation Transition Technologies
multi-flow setup is recommended. Considering a multipoint-to-point
scenario, for most transition technologies, one of the edge nodes is Similarly, for the encapsulation and double-translation transition
designed to support more than one connecting devices. Hence, the technologies, a multi-flow setup is recommended. Considering a
recommended test setup is a n:1 design, where n is the number of multipoint-to-point scenario, for most transition technologies, one
client DUTs connected to the same server DUT (See Figure 5). of the edge nodes is designed to support more than one connecting
device. Hence, the recommended test setup is an n:1 design, where n
is the number of client DUTs connected to the same server DUT (see
Figure 5).
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
+--------------------|NF1 NF1|<--------------+ +--------------------|NF1 NF1|<--------------+
| +-----------------|NF2 tester NF2|<-----------+ | | +-----------------|NF2 Tester NF2|<-----------+ |
| | ...| | | | | | ...| | | |
| | +-------------|NFn NFn|<-------+ | | | | +-------------|NFn NFn|<-------+ | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | | | | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | +-----------------+ +---------------+ | | | | | | +-----------------+ +---------------+ | | |
| | +--->| NFn DUT n NFn |--->|NFn NFn| ---+ | | | | +--->| NFn DUT n NFn |--->|NFn NFn| ---+ | |
| | +-----------------+ | | | | | | +-----------------+ | | | |
| | ... | | | | | | ... | | | |
| | +-----------------+ | DUT n+1 | | | | | +-----------------+ | DUT n+1 | | |
| +------->| NF2 DUT 2 NF2 |--->|NF2 NF2|--------+ | | +------->| NF2 DUT 2 NF2 |--->|NF2 NF2|--------+ |
| +-----------------+ | | | | +-----------------+ | | |
| +-----------------+ | | | | +-----------------+ | | |
+---------->| NF1 DUT 1 NF1 |--->|NF1 NF1|-----------+ +---------->| NF1 DUT 1 NF1 |--->|NF1 NF1|-----------+
+-----------------+ +---------------+ +-----------------+ +---------------+
Figure 5. Test setup 4
Figure 5: Test Setup 5 (DUAL DUT with Increased
Network Flows)
This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the server This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the server
device. However, for testing the overload scalability of the client device. However, for testing the overload scalability of the client
DUTs additional recommendations are needed. DUTs, additional recommendations are needed.
For encapsulation transition technologies, a m:n setup can be
For encapsulation transition technologies, an m:n setup can be
created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same client created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same client
device and n the number of client devices connected to the same device and n the number of client devices connected to the same
server device. server device.
For the translation based transition technologies, the client
devices can be separately tested with n network flows using the test
setup presented in Figure 4.
10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation For translation-based transition technologies, the client devices can
be separately tested with n network flows using the test setup
presented in Figure 4.
10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load 10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation
10.2.1. Network Performance Degradation with Simultaneous Load
Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n
parallel and simultaneous network flows. parallel and simultaneous network flows.
Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have
to be performed for one network flow. to be performed for one network flow.
The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the
network flows are started simultaneously. The performance network flows are started simultaneously. The performance
degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as
relative performance change between the 1-flow (single flow) results relative performance change between the 1-flow (single flow) results
and the n-flow results, using the following formula: and the n-flow results, using the following formula:
Xn - X1 Xn - X1
Xpd= ----------- * 100, where: X1 - result for 1-flow Xpd = ----------- * 100, where: X1 = result for 1-flow
X1 Xn - result for n-flows X1 Xn = result for n-flows
This formula SHOULD be applied only for lower is better benchmarks This formula SHOULD be applied only for "lower is better" benchmarks
(e.g. latency). (e.g., latency). For "higher is better" benchmarks (e.g.,
For higher is better benchmarks (e.g. throughput), the following throughput), the following formula is RECOMMENDED:
formula is RECOMMENDED.
X1 - Xn X1 - Xn
Xpd= ----------- * 100, where: X1 - result for 1-flow Xpd = ----------- * 100, where: X1 = result for 1-flow
X1 Xn - result for n-flows X1 Xn = result for n-flows
As a guideline for the maximum number of flows n, the value can be As a guideline for the maximum number of flows n, the value can be
deduced by measuring the Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity as deduced by measuring the Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity as
described by [RFC3511], following the test setups specified by described by [RFC3511], following the test setups specified by
Section 4. Section 4.
Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as
a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly
specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there
SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table
SHOULD also state the applied frame rate. In the case of benchmarks SHOULD also state the applied frame rate. In the case of benchmarks
for which more than one value is reported (e.g. IPDV Section 7.3.2), for which more than one value is reported (e.g., IPDV, discussed in
a column for each of the values SHOULD be included. Section 7.3.2), a column for each of the values SHOULD be included.
10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load 10.2.2. Network Performance Degradation with Incremental Load
Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n
parallel and incrementally started network flows. parallel and incrementally started network flows.
Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have
to be performed for one network flow. to be performed for one network flow.
The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the
network flows are started incrementally in succession, each after network flows are started incrementally in succession, each after
time t. In other words, if flow i is started at time x, flow i+1 time t. In other words, if flow i is started at time x, flow i+1
will be started at time x+t. Considering the time t, the time will be started at time x+t. Considering the time t, the time
duration of each iteration must be extended with the time necessary duration of each iteration must be extended with the time necessary
to start all the flows, namely (n-1)xt. The measurement for the to start all the flows, namely, (n-1)xt. The measurement for the
first flow SHOULD be at least 60 seconds in duration. first flow SHOULD be at least 60 seconds in duration.
The performance degradation of the x benchmarking dimension SHOULD The performance degradation of the x benchmarking dimension SHOULD be
be calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow results
results and the n-flow results, using the formula presented in and the n-flow results, using the formula presented in
Section 10.2.1. Intermediary degradation points for 1/4*n, 1/2*n and Section 10.2.1. Intermediary degradation points for 1/4*n, 1/2*n,
3/4*n MAY also be performed. and 3/4*n MAY also be performed.
Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as
a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly
specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there
SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table
SHOULD also state the applied frame rate and time duration T, used SHOULD also state the applied frame rate and time duration T, which
as increment step between the network flows. The units of is used as an incremental step between the network flows. The units
measurement for T SHOULD be seconds. A column for the intermediary of measurement for T SHOULD be seconds. A column for the
degradation points MAY also be displayed. In the case of benchmarks intermediary degradation points MAY also be displayed. In the case
for which more than one value is reported (e.g. IPDV Section 7.3.2), of benchmarks for which more than one value is reported (e.g., IPDV,
a column for each of the values SHOULD be included. discussed in Section 7.3.2), a column for each of the values SHOULD
be included.
11. NAT44 and NAT66 11. NAT44 and NAT66
Although these technologies are not the primary scope of this Although these technologies are not the primary scope of this
document, the benchmarking methodology associated with single document, the benchmarking methodology associated with single-
translation technologies as defined in Section 4.1 can be employed translation technologies as defined in Section 4.1 can be employed to
to benchmark NAT44 (as defined by [RFC2663] with the behavior benchmark implementations that use NAT44 (as defined by [RFC2663]
described by [RFC7857]) implementations and NAT66 (as defined by with the behavior described by [RFC7857]) and implementations that
[RFC6296]) implementations. use NAT66 (as defined by [RFC6296]).
12. Summarizing function and variation 12. Summarizing Function and Variation
To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using the
the tests presented in Sections 7 through 9, multiple test tests presented in Sections 7 through 9, multiple test iterations are
iterations are RECOMMENDED. Using a summarizing function (or measure RECOMMENDED. Using a summarizing function (or measure of central
of central tendency) can be a simple and effective way to compare tendency) can be a simple and effective way to compare the results
the results obtained across different iterations. However, over- obtained across different iterations. However, over-summarization is
summarization is an unwanted effect of reporting a single number. an unwanted effect of reporting a single number.
Measuring the variation (dispersion index) can be used to counter Measuring the variation (dispersion index) can be used to counter the
the over-summarization effect. Empirical data obtained following the over-summarization effect. Empirical data obtained following the
proposed methodology can also offer insights on which summarizing proposed methodology can also offer insights on which summarizing
function would fit better. function would fit better.
To that end, data presented in [ietf95pres] indicate the median as To that end, data presented in [ietf95pres] indicate the median as a
suitable summarizing function and the 1st and 99th percentiles as suitable summarizing function and the 1st and 99th percentiles as
variation measures for DNS Resolution Performance and PDV. The variation measures for DNS Resolution Performance and PDV. The
median and percentile calculation functions SHOULD follow the median and percentile calculation functions SHOULD follow the
recommendations of [RFC2330] Section 11.3. recommendations of Section 11.3 of [RFC2330].
For a fine grained analysis of the frequency distribution of the For a fine-grained analysis of the frequency distribution of the
data, histograms or cumulative distribution function plots can be data, histograms or cumulative distribution function plots can be
employed. employed.
13. Security Considerations 13. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
specified in the sections above. specified in the sections above.
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test traffic into a production network or misroute traffic to the test
management network. management network.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. Special solely on measurements observable external to the DUT or System Under
capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for Test (SUT). Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising specifically for benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production security arising from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and
networks. in production networks.
14. IANA Considerations 14. IANA Considerations
The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:2::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6 The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:2::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6
benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was
reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient
for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies. Thus, no action is for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies. Thus, no action is
requested. requested.
15. References 15. References
15.1. Normative References 15.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>. July 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP performance metrics", RFC 2330, DOI "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
editor.org/info/rfc2330>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S., and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, DOI Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
editor.org/info/rfc2544>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, DOI Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
editor.org/info/rfc3393>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.
[RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S. and T. Martin, [RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin,
"Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance", RFC "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance",
3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003, <http://www.rfc- RFC 3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003,
editor.org/info/rfc3511>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3511>.
[RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D. [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180,
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>. May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.
[RFC5481] Morton, A., and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481, Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>. March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.
[RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F. and C. Olvera, [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera,
"Device Reset Characterization ", RFC 6201, DOI "Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201,
10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011,
editor.org/info/rfc6201>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>.
15.2. Informative References [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P., and M. Holdrege. "IP Network Address 15.2. Informative References
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC2663,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2663>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms [RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005, <http://www.rfc- RFC 2663, DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999,
editor.org/info/rfc4213>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2663>.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur, [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
editor.org/info/4659>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur, [RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, February 2007, IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.
[RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 [RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, DOI 10.17487/RFC5569, "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5569>. Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4798, February 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for [RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144, Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, DOI 10.17487/RFC5569,
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>. January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5569>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011, <http://www.rfc- April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6219] Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219, DOI DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
10.17487/RFC6219, May 2011, <http://www.rfc- <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
editor.org/info/rfc6219>.
[RFC6296] Wasserman, M., and F. Baker. "IPv6-to-IPv6 network prefix [RFC6219] Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The
translation." RFC6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011. China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI
Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6
Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6219, May 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6219>.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- [RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Translation", RFC 6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011,
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6296>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013, <http://www.rfc- Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
editor.org/info/rfc6877>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman, [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC6890, Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013, <http://www.rfc- RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
editor.org/info/rfc6890>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I. [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman,
Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual- "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153,
Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596, RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013,
July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
[RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S., [RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597, DOI Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015, <http://www.rfc- July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.
editor.org/info/rfc7597>.
[RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S., [RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>. DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.
[RFC7857] Penno, R., Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Sivakumar, S., [RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
and K. Naito "Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT) and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
Behavioral Requirements" RFC 7857, DOI 10.17487/RFC7857, Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
April 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7857>. 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.
[RFC7915] LBao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont, [RFC7857] Penno, R., Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Ed., Sivakumar,
"IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915, DOI S., and K. Naito, "Updates to Network Address Translation
10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016, <http://www.rfc- (NAT) Behavioral Requirements", BCP 127, RFC 7857,
editor.org/info/rfc7915>. DOI 10.17487/RFC7857, April 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7857>.
[Dns64perf] Bakai, D., "A C++11 DNS64 performance tester", [RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
available: https://github.com/bakaid/dns64perfpp "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.
[ietf95pres] Georgescu, M., "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 [Dns64perf]
Transition Technologies", IETF 95, Buenos Aires, Bakai, D., "A C++11 DNS64 performance tester",
Argentina, April 2016, available: <https://github.com/bakaid/dns64perfpp>.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-bmwg-
2.pdf
[Lencse1] Lencse, G., Georgescu, M. and Y. Kadobayashi, [ietf95pres]
"Benchmarking Methodology for DNS64 Servers", unpublished, Georgescu, M., "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6
revised version is available: Transition Technologies", IETF 95 Proceedings, Buenos
http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECC-2017-B-M- Aires, Argentina, April 2016,
DNS64-revised.pdf <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/
slides-95-bmwg-2.pdf>.
[Lencse2] Lencse, G., Bakai, D, "Design and Implementation of a Test [Lencse1] Lencse, G., Georgescu, M., and Y. Kadobayashi,
Program for Benchmarking DNS64 Servers", IEICE "Benchmarking Methodology for DNS64 Servers", Computer
Transactions on Communications, vol. E100-B, no. 6. pp. Communications, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 162-175,
948-954, (June 2017), freely available from: DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2017.06.004, September 2017,
http://doi.org/10.1587/transcom.2016EBN0007 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0140366416305904?via%3Dihub>
[Lencse3] http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/dns64perfppc/ [Lencse2] Lencse, G. and D. Bakai, "Design and Implementation of a
Test Program for Benchmarking DNS64 Servers", IEICE
Transactions on Communications, Vol. E100-B, No. 6,
pp. 948-954, DOI 10.1587/transcom.2016EBN0007, June 2017,
<https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/transcom/E100.B/
6/E100.B_2016EBN0007/_article>.
[Lencse4] Lencse, G., "Enabling Dns64perf++ for Benchmarking the [Lencse3] dns64perfppc,
Caching Performance of DNS64 Servers", unpublished, review <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/dns64perfppc/>.
version is available:
http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/IEICE-2016-
dns64perfppc-for-review.pdf
[IEEE802.1AC-2016] IEEE Standard, "802.1AC-2016 - IEEE Standard for [Lencse4] Lencse, G., "Enabling Dns64perf++ for Benchmarking the
Local and metropolitan area networks -- Media Access Caching Performance of DNS64 Servers", unpublished, review
Control (MAC) Service Definition", 2016, available: version, <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/
https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.1AC- IEICE-2016-dns64perfppc-for-review.pdf>.
2016.html
16. Acknowledgements [IEEE802.1AC]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Service
Definition", IEEE 802.1AC.
The authors would like to thank Youki Kadobayashi and Hiroaki [IEEE802.1Q]
Hazeyama for their constant feedback and support. The thanks should IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
be extended to the NECOMA project members for their continuous networks -- Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std
support. The thank you list should also include Emanuel Popa, Ionut 802.1Q.
Spirlea and the RCS&RDS IP/MPLS Backbone Team for their support and
insights. We would also like to thank Scott Bradner for the useful
suggestions. We also note that portions of text from Scott's
documents were used in this memo (e.g. Latency section). A big thank
you to Al Morton and Fred Baker for their detailed review of the
draft and very helpful suggestions. Other helpful comments and
suggestions were offered by Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan, Andrew
McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname Nishizuka, Yasuhiro Ohara, Masataka
Mawatari, Kostas Pentikousis, Bela Almasi, Tim Chown, Paul Emmerich
and Stenio Fernandes. A special thank you to the RFC Editor Team for
their thorough editorial review and helpful suggestions. This
document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates
This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the
theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over Ethernet as theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over Ethernet as
example media. The formula takes into account the frame size example media. The formula takes into account the frame size
overhead created by the encapsulation or the translation process. overhead created by the encapsulation or translation process. For
For example, the 6in4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213] adds 20 example, the 6in4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213] adds 20 bytes
bytes of overhead to each frame. of overhead to each frame.
Considering X to be the frame size and O to be the frame size Considering X to be the frame size and O to be the frame size
overhead created by the encapsulation on translation process, the overhead created by the encapsulation or translation process, the
maximum theoretical frame rate for Ethernet can be calculated using maximum theoretical frame rate for Ethernet can be calculated using
the following formula: the following formula:
Line Rate (bps) Line Rate (bps)
------------------------------ ------------------------------------
(8bits/byte)*(X+O+20)bytes/frame (8 bits/byte) * (X+O+20) bytes/frame
The calculation is based on the formula recommended by RFC5180 in The calculation is based on the formula recommended by [RFC5180] in
Appendix A1. As an example, the frame rate recommended for testing a Appendix A.1. As an example, the frame rate recommended for testing
6in4 implementation over 10Mb/s Ethernet with 64 bytes frames is: a 6in4 implementation over 10 Mb/s Ethernet with 64 bytes frames is:
10,000,000(bps) 10,000,000 (bps)
------------------------------ = 12,019 fps -------------------------------------- = 12,019 fps
(8bits/byte)*(64+20+20)bytes/frame (8 bits/byte) * (64+20+20) bytes/frame
The complete list of recommended frame rates for 6in4 encapsulation The complete list of recommended frame rates for 6in4 encapsulation
can be found in the following table: can be found in the following table:
+------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+ +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
| Frame size | 10 Mb/s | 100 Mb/s | 1000 Mb/s | 10000 Mb/s | | Frame size | 10 Mb/s | 100 Mb/s | 1000 Mb/s | 10000 Mb/s |
| (bytes) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) | | (bytes) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) |
+------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+ +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
| 64 | 12,019 | 120,192 | 1,201,923 | 12,019,231 | | 64 | 12,019 | 120,192 | 1,201,923 | 12,019,231 |
| 128 | 7,440 | 74,405 | 744,048 | 7,440,476 | | 128 | 7,440 | 74,405 | 744,048 | 7,440,476 |
skipping to change at page 28, line 5 skipping to change at page 30, line 5
| 1024 | 1,175 | 11,748 | 117,481 | 1,174,812 | | 1024 | 1,175 | 11,748 | 117,481 | 1,174,812 |
| 1280 | 947 | 9,470 | 94,697 | 946,970 | | 1280 | 947 | 9,470 | 94,697 | 946,970 |
| 1518 | 802 | 8,023 | 80,231 | 802,311 | | 1518 | 802 | 8,023 | 80,231 | 802,311 |
| 1522 | 800 | 8,003 | 80,026 | 800,256 | | 1522 | 800 | 8,003 | 80,026 | 800,256 |
| 2048 | 599 | 5,987 | 59,866 | 598,659 | | 2048 | 599 | 5,987 | 59,866 | 598,659 |
| 4096 | 302 | 3,022 | 30,222 | 302,224 | | 4096 | 302 | 3,022 | 30,222 | 302,224 |
| 8192 | 152 | 1,518 | 15,185 | 151,846 | | 8192 | 152 | 1,518 | 15,185 | 151,846 |
| 9216 | 135 | 1,350 | 13,505 | 135,048 | | 9216 | 135 | 1,350 | 13,505 | 135,048 |
+------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+ +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Youki Kadobayashi and Hiroaki Hazeyama for their
constant feedback and support. The thanks should be extended to the
NECOMA project members for their continuous support. We thank
Emanuel Popa, Ionut Spirlea, and the RCS&RDS IP/MPLS Backbone Team
for their support and insights. We thank Scott Bradner for the
useful suggestions and note that portions of text from Scott's
documents were used in this memo (e.g., the "Latency" section). A
big thank you to Al Morton and Fred Baker for their detailed review
of the document and very helpful suggestions. Other helpful comments
and suggestions were offered by Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan, Andrew
McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname Nishizuka, Yasuhiro Ohara, Masataka
Mawatari, Kostas Pentikousis, Bela Almasi, Tim Chown, Paul Emmerich,
and Stenio Fernandes. A special thank you to the RFC Editor Team for
their thorough editorial review and helpful suggestions.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Marius Georgescu Marius Georgescu
RCS&RDS RCS&RDS
Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75 Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75
Bucharest 030167 Bucharest 030167
Romania Romania
Phone: +40 31 005 0979 Phone: +40 31 005 0979
Email: marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro Email: marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro
Liviu Pislaru Liviu Pislaru
 End of changes. 263 change blocks. 
736 lines changed or deleted 751 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/